Search Results for: danielczyk

Post navigation

…ion twist is somewhat different, but I litigated the corporate ban against Jim Bopp in the Ninth Circuit and won. And all circuits to have considered the issue (including the 4th Circuit, reversing a contrary decision in the Danielczyk case) have rejected challenges to the corporate ban under the authority of an earlier Supreme Court case, FEC v. Beaumont. Beaumont was on somewhat shaky ground after C itizens United, and on very shaky ground now…

…uffPo: But advocates may be disappointed to learn that Goodman, an attorney with LeClairRyan, has a record of opposing certain campaign finance reforms. He argued — ultimately unsuccessfully — in United States v. Danielczyk to overturn the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates. In that case, a judge ruled that the Citizens United decision invalidated the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates….

…5/31/13). The sentence was among the toughest ever for campaign finance violations but was less than the five years in prison recommended by federal prosecutors (3522 Money & Politics Report, 5/30/13). Prosecutors cited Danielczyk’s efforts to cover up his crime in submissions to the Federal Election Commission and obstruction of an FBI investigation. Danielczyk’s case was also significant because it presented the Supreme Court…

…guilty Feb. 26 to charges of violating campaign finance laws by funneling nearly $200,000 in corporate contributions to campaign committees of Hillary Clinton, the former senator from New York and secretary of state (U.S. v. Danielczyk, E.D. Va., Criminal No. 11-85, pleas entered 2/26/13). Plea agreements signed in the case indicated that Danielczyk could face five years in prison as a result of the long-running criminal case, while Biagi faces…

…ntribution ban in the Thalheimer case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. All of the other circuit courts reached the same conclusion: that the corporate contribution limit stands under earlier Supreme Court authority. Danielczyk case the only case to reach a contrary conclusion in the district court, but was reversed by the 4th Circuit to bring it in line with the other circuits. Although there was no circuit split on this question (a…

It turns out that Danielczyk has been relisted for Friday’s conference. (Thanks to a reader for calling this to my attention.) The Court could still put the case on hold for McCutcheon, or grant and hear the case net term as well, or deny cert. My betting at this point would be on the first or second, but not the third, option. We’ll see. The McCutcheon grant of review got front page coverage in the New York Times, as well as…

…limits were subject to a very complaisant standard of review, very easy to sustain against challenge. (The possibility that the Court could do this may explain why the Court has not ruled on the pending cert. petition in the Danielczyk case, challenging the constitutionality of the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates. It could well hold this case for the outcome of McCutheon.) More broadly, a decision to strike down aggregate…

the order won’t come before Tuesday at 9:30 am. If I had to make a prediction, I’d predict that the Court takes the McCutcheon case involving the aggregate contribution limit but not the Danielczyk case, about the constitutionality of the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates. McCutcheon is coming up on appeal and not cert, and a decision to not hear the case counts as a ruling on the merits. Also, there’s no…

…erg BNA: “The legal standard to prove a ‘willful’ violation of campaign finance laws is being debated by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers in a major criminal case, with the Justice Department being accused of backing away from a standard used previous cases and enshrined in DOJ guidelines. The legal battle was revealed in recent court filings in the long-running case, which involves Virginia businessmen William…

The Eighth Circuit has issued its en banc opinion in the Swanson case. The Eighth Circuit now joins the Second, Fourth (after the rejection of the district court decision in Danielczyk) and Ninth Circuits (in the Thalheimer case in which I was involved) in holding that any challenge to corporate contribution bans in the lower courts is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. Beaumont. The 8th Circuit does drop a footnote…

It’s been an active day in the courts even beyond the health care rulings. In the Danielczyk case, the Fourth Circuit has reversed the Virginia district court opinion striking down the federal ban on corporate contributions to candidates in the wake of Citizens United. Rick had urged a prompt appeal of the district court’s outlier opinion, and the Fourth Circuit appears to have responded. The court not only found Danielczyk…

…“Attorneys for Virginia businessmen challenging the constitutionality of the century-old ban on corporate contributions in federal election campaigns faced skepticism from a federal appeals court panel May 18 (U.S. v. Danielczyk, 4th Cir., No. 11-4667, oral argument 5/18/12)….During the May 18 argument, questioning by Traxler and the two other judges on the appellate panel hinted that they were considering overturning the district…

…“A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments May 18 in the Justice Department’s challenge to a lower court decision that held as unconstitutional the federal ban on corporate campaign contributions (U.S. v. Danielczyk, 4th Cir., No. 11-4667, amicus filed 1/10/12).” Also: “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering a challenge to Minnesota’s campaign finance law regulating corporate money,…

…n appeal to the 4th Circuit), defying Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of limits on corporate contributions to candidates. (Here‘s the 2d Circuit on that opinion: The Court is aware of United States v. Danielczyk, No. 1:11cr85 (JCC), 2011 WL 2161794 (E.D. Va. May 26, 2011), which struck down a ban on corporate contributions, based on what it called an ‘inescapable’ expansion of Citizen United’s logic. Id. at *18;…

Agreeing with the Second Circuit and Eighth Circuit (now up on en banc appeal) and disagreeing with the district court in the Danielczyk case (now on appeal to the 4th Circuit), a federal district court in San Diego today had upheld the City of San Diego’s laws banning corporations, labor unions, and other non-individual entities (aside from political parties) from contributing money directly to candidates for City office. The opinion in…

Republican National Committee files brief in 4th Circuit Danielczyk case today arguing that for-profit corporations have the constitutional right to make campaign contributions directly to candidates. (h/t Ken Vogel) (More from Ken here) Especially if Romney is the nominee, expect this to be rolled into Romney’s “corporations are people, my friend” line, the Bain Capital stuff, and the recent “I like to fire people…

…ts on expenditures and limits on contributions”); (2) affirms that the anti-circumvention interest remains valid after Citizens United and FEC v. Beaumont remains good law (“The Court is aware of United States v. Danielczyk, No. 1:11cr85 (JCC), 2011 WL 2161794 (E.D. Va. May 26, 2011), which struck down a ban on corporate contributions, based on what it called an ‘inescapable’ expansion of Citizen United’s logic. Id. at…

…anford Law Review.) Assuming this decision stands (that is, is not taken en banc or heard by the Supreme Court now given the Circuit split), it would provide a strong basis for upholding the corporate contribution ban in the Danielczyk case. (Disclosure: I am one of the lawyers representing the City of San Diego in the Thalheimer case, cited in Preston, considering the constitutionality of the City’s ban on corporate and other non-human…

In Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, the Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction of the City’s law barring non-human contributions to candidates (the same issue as in the Danielczyk case in the 4th Circuit and the Swanson case in the 8th circuit). The court also denied a preliminary injunction as to time limitations for candidates raising campaign contributions. The Ninth Circuit also denied…

…BNA (subscription required) has the details. Spoiler alert: Rep. Grayson’s name was on a fundraising invite for a state candidate, asking for contributions from an “individual, corporation, PAC, or trust.” Grayson contends that a staffer approved his participation without his consent. No sign of a Danielczyk defense….

…t a temporal limitation on campaign contributions (no contributions more than a year before an election) is likely constitutional. [Disclosure: I am one of the attorneys for the City of San Diego.] The district court in the Danielczyk case held that the federal corporate contribution ban was unconstitutional, a case now on appeal to the Fourth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit in the Swanson case held that a similar Minnesota ban was constitutional,…

…BNA Money and Politics Report offers this report. UPDATE: The end of the article states: “The Justice Department is believed to be considering filing an appeal of Cacheris’ ruling, which threw out one count of an indictment of Danielczyk.”…

I have written this guest post for the ACS Blog. It concludes: “The opinion in Danielczyk throws the entire federal corporate contribution ban into question, just as we enter the 2012 campaign season. The government can and should appeal it, and have this outlier precedent overturned. Otherwise at next year’s state of the union address, Justice Alito won’t have the chance to say ‘not true.’ And our democracy will be…